I was on a long drive and missed the Republican candidate’s debate on ABC but got to the hotel just in time to catch the Democratic candidates’ debate in New Hampshire and — WOW! I DO love tag-team wrestling matches…

It was former Senator John Edwards and Democratic Senator Barack Obama tag-teaming against Senator Hillary Clinton.

Edwards had Obama’s back — while Clinton spent much of the debate shoving verbal daggers into it.

And the passions, maneuvers and transparent manipulations were understandable since polls show the New Hampshire primary race is now a dead heat between Obama (who has Big Mo) and Clinton (who has Big Bill).

The Washington Post’ Chris Cillizza notes, the political context of this debate realistically left Clinton little choice but to go after Obama at almost every chance she got:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) cast off the magnanimous, above-the-fray approach she had used up until now in the campaign, aggressively challenging Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) over which of the three can truly bring about change.

“I think I am an agent of change,” Clinton insisted. “I think having the first woman president is a huge change.”

While that line drew spontaneous applause from the audience inside the debate hall, it may be too little too late for Clinton. A majority of voters in the Iowa Democratic caucuses said a candidate who could bring about change was their top priority in making their pick, and Obama won overwhelmingly among that bloc of voters.

Given the short period of time between Iowa’s caucuses and New Hampshire’s primary, it will be difficult for Clinton to change the underlying dynamics of the race in such short order. Obama is at ease when talking change and he showed it again tonight; “Regardless of what the Republican candidates are talking about I think there are a whole hosts of Republicans and Independents who have lost hope in their government,” he said. “We can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working majority for change.”

And the spectacle was a sight to behold. Was this REALLY one of those boring, old political debates or had ABC resurrected CNN’s Crossfire? The New York Times:

It was as if they sensed vulnerability.

Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night. With Mr. Obama hoping that a victory in New Hampshire, following his first-place finish in Iowa, would make him difficult to beat in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — and with Mr. Edwards looking to defeat Mrs. Clinton in a second straight contest — they entered an alliance of convenience.

In an exchange that summed up the basic story line of the contest, they cast her as a candidate of the status quo who would fail to deliver the changes in government that many Democratic voters demand.

With the New Hampshire primary two days away, Mrs. Clinton found her courage, likability and judgment questioned. But she fought back as she did when she was first lady of Arkansas and of the United States — with defiance and flashes of anger, pursing her lips, stiffening her back and staring intently at her rivals.

She could have used karate king Chuck Norris — but he’s running around with Governor Mike Huckabee these days. (Question to Oprah: Can you wrestle?)

And when Ms. Clinton replied, if it were prepared, it certainly sounded like it came from the depth of her soul and gut:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, showing frustration over criticism that she represents the status quo, lashed out last night at the two rivals who beat her in last week’s Iowa caucuses.

“Making change is not about what you believe,” an agitated Clinton told Barack Obama and John Edwards after they faulted her campaign tactics during a debate, the last before New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary on Jan. 8. “It’s not about the speech you make. It’s about working hard.”

A transcript of the debate IS HERE.

Here’s this independent voter’s take on how the candidates did:

–OBAMA GOT IT RIGHT: His debate performances have not always been stellar. This time he was the front runner, so it was certain that New Hampshire voters — and voters across the nation — were going to give him a close look. Could he still come across as the new generation’s JFK? Could he stand up to expected attacks from Clinton and the others? The answer to both questions was yes. Obama did exceptionally well, coming across as thoughtful, assertive and stressing the fact that the many Americans want to change the political culture so campaigns are no longer ventures in destroying and attacking opponents.

He again argued that Americans don’t want tiny change…they want to change the way the government operates, the way political campaigns are conducted, and change policies. He talked about change as based on ideas, hope and the future.

–HILLARY CLINTON WAS ASSERTIVE AND EFFECTIVE BUT COULD HAVE TURNED SOME VOTERS OFF: She once again proved that she would be so much better off if she had only locked her husband up in a room and campaigned as the diligent Senator from New York who had been a first lady rather than let the former President blur the issue and paint her as The Wife Who Helped Me. She was smart, assertive…but perhaps made two errors that could come back to bite her on the you-know-where.

(1) She was so clearly going after Obama at every opportunity that she came across as programmed to be negative, even when she was offering much positive information and ideas.

(2) She was not plastic but showed passion and anger — but perhaps some of the anger will backfire with voters when they compare her with the reasoned, almost statesmanlike Obama (an image you got the feeling Obama was working hard to get across to viewers). If voters conclude she was angry because other Democrats are in the way of what she feels she is entitled to have (the Oval Office), she will suffer at the polls on Tuesday. Clinton is sort of caught in Catch 22: if she doesn’t respond, people think she’s arrogant or too weak. If she does, some voters will think she’s too aggressive.

Clinton sees change as not just the future but what the person has done in the past which proves they can bring about more change now. The problem: many Americans are so thirsty for change now that talking too much about the 1990s or even changes done in Congress is still talking about the past.

–JOHN EDWARDS GAVE HIS BEST TV PERFORMANCE EVER OR DID HE? Effective. Mesmerizing. Absolutely withering in his criticism of Hillary Clinton as being part of the “status quo.” Fair? Not really. But you could see his trial lawyer experience. Still, when the tube was off you were left with a bad taste. Did you watch a candidate or a prosecutor? Could you trust him to give you a balanced view or is he as too much into political demonization? Edwards repeatedly jumped in to defend Obama and blast Clinton. He wants her out of the race so he can take Obama on head on. The 2008 John Edwards is not a cuddly John Edwards. He is a passionate John Edwards. But not a particularly likable John Edwards.

–NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON STILL GIVES SOME GOOD QUIPS: But he has problems. He is not photogenic. He is much too windy for sound bytes. And he sounds very much like an old-style self-promoting politician begging for votes from voters who have not showered him with them so far. His plea about experience counting is unlikely to sway votes because it was coupled with a long (winded) recounting of what he did in office.

The time to go to the bathroom was when it was Richardson’s turn.

Moderator Charles Gibson was quite good, asking questions that many voters would like to have asked.

SUMMARY: Obama didn’t hurt himself. Hillary might have. Edwards didn’t do poorly. And Richardson was Richardson.

UPDATES:

–NBC’s Chuck Todd:

The focus on this debate for so many in New Hampshire and the media was twofold — how would Obama handle being the frontrunner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger. Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors. He got to look in command (telling Edwards, politely, when it was his turn to speak); he defended himself against Clinton by lecturing her tone and then got to look like the “normal” one by letting the moderator know who won the ‘Skins game.

I’m not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself.

–Ezra Klein:

In the debate over health care mandates, rather than argue for his plan, or against Obama’s, Edwards went after Hillary as a force “of the status quo” fighting those trying to bring about change. It backfired. Clinton had looked a little tired accusing Obama of flip-flopping, but Edwards riled her up enough to elicit a furious recitation of the change Hillary had actually fought for: S-CHIP and National Guard benefits and on and on. It was quite impressive, and impassioned in a way Hillary rarely is.

SOME BLOG REACTION:

—-Stephen Greene aka Vodka Pundit, writing for Pajamas Media saw both debates. This post MUST be read in full (Greene is a great writer). Here’s a small part 4 U:

Low: Frontrunners in general. Neither Clinton nor Mitt Romney nor Mike Huckabee exactly distinguished themselves tonight. Clinton needed to knock down Barack Obama and administer a killing blow to John Edwards. She accomplished neither. Romney needed to show that he deserved better than his second-place showing in Iowa, but didn’t. Huckabee needed to show his Iowa win was no fluke, but he looked like an also-ran.

High: Obama, for looking and sounding presidential. He still hasn’t said much, but more and more Obama knows how to make you feel comfortable with the idea of him as President. He’s fully developed that something that we call “presidential.” It’s not much of a high, but it was all he needed to prove himself tonight’s winner on the Democratic side.

–Taylor Marsh:

Clinton was relaxed and fearless from the start, which was no doubt part of Obama’s frustration. She also got the only applause line when she said the first woman president is the very definition of change. It was clear she indeed felt liberated after Iowa. It might have been the best thing that happened to her. Once you lose you can let go. So she went straight at Mr. Obama on his record and he couldn’t or rather didn’t respond, offering non sequiturs instead. He didn’t answer the questions, so he segued to the results in Iowa.

Another problem for Mr. Obama was that he seemed a bit drained. Obama didn’t score points with Iraq either. Mr. Obama also kept talking about change, but throughout the debate the specifics just weren’t there. “Words” do help and make a difference seemed to be his focus. Words have the power. With words things happen. That’s why he won in Iowa. Again with Iowa.

–Snarky Bastards offers some observations:

I do not want a president who sets out to inspire me, or “heal” the country, whatever that means…John Edwards is not as pretty as he used to be…Bill Richardson looks like a slob. His tie is loose, his jacket is too small (both across the shoulders and in the sleeves), and, let’s be blunt, he has three chins…The more I watch Hillary, the more I like her. I may be the only person in the country for whom this is true.

–Jonathan Singer at My DD:

Top headline on Yahoo News is The AP’s “Clinton Accuses Obama Of Changing Positions.” This is exactly the story Clinton wanted coming out of this debate. The only quote from Obama in the article is him on defense. Will this lead to a new narrative, a new scrutiny of Obama’s record in the closing days?

–The Anchoress reacts to some who believe Clinton lost her temper:

I watched the video and didn’t think she came off too shrewish. A little incoherent, desperate sounding and clearly angry - she must so ticked off that she is finding herself in this position when she was pretty sure she was gliding to a coronation - and I think I read somewhere a while back that her claims about insuring National Guardsmen are a stretch, but stretching is what Clinton’s do, so no one will care. Perhaps it played worse in the context of the whole debate, but to me this video does not seem like the “moment of implosion” which many are waiting for. I think she’s going to get a lot angrier before that happens.

–Ann Althouse:

Hillary sounds terrible — saying “uh” and “you know” a lot and haranguing in a yelly voice. Meanwhile, Edwards and Obama are keeping their temper and playing super-nice. Richardson… well, why is he there, getting the same amount of time? He just keeps trying to insert info from his résumé. (”Is experience a leper?”)

–Paul Levinson:

Hillary did very well in the Democratic debate, in tone and substance. Her best line was when she pointed out that she embodies change, given that her election would be the first time a woman was President. Very true and important. (She and Obama both, literally, embody change - unlike any of the Republicans.) Edwards was good, too, especially in his attack on Hillary. But she handled that attack very well.